JimBentley wrote:Now that Jeremy Corbyn has been re-elected Labour Party leader with an even bigger mandate than last year (despite 150,000+ of his supporters being barred from voting), I wonder whether certain members of the Parliamentary Labour Party - particularly those that refused to serve in the shadow cabinet - will get behind him rather than trying to undermine him (with the enthusiastic help of virtually every media outlet) at every turn? I'd like to think that they will, but on past form, they're probably plotting another leadership challenge as I type this.

If so, I wonder who'll they will try next? It's not going to be any of the high-profile naysayers - people such as Yvette Cooper, Angela Eagle, Chuka Umunna, Liz Kendall, Hilary Benn, Stephen Kinnock, Tom Watson et al - who still harbour political ambitions, as they surely know that they would be beaten badly and that would harm their reputations irreparably. It'll have to be someone with name recognition, but expendable to the PLP, so my bet's going on Jess Phillips. As to when, probably early next year; they can't do it immediately, it would be too transparent.

And what would be the result of a contest between Jess Phillips and Jeremy Corbyn?

The anti-Corbyns were willing to risk the reputation of the party by making this challenge. I'm not actually sure what they thought would happen. Corbyn was always likely to win against Eagle/Smith/any other challenger, but Labour were always going to lose from this. Maybe they thought Corbyn would just stand down, or that they could force him off the ballot, but that was never going to go down well with the Labour membership, which would likely have knock-on effects for the party.

And so, what different would happen if Jess Phillips or anyone else made a challenge next year? The party would look even worse, and if Corbyn won again, the whole concept of Labour leadership contests would become a big joke to everyone. Early next year is way too early. If they want to get rid of him, they have to play the long game. It's not enough for them to be dissatisfied with him internally - he has to majorly fuck up in public. My understanding is that Gordon Brown was pretty unpopular as a leader within Labour, but they generally speaking shut up about it because they didn't want Labour to lose out with all the infighting.

But for some reason, they've considered it to be OK to just have a pop at Corbyn whenever they feel like. It's been really unprofessional from a whole host of Labour MPs, and they've really damaged the party. This is irrespective of what you might think of Corbyn as a leader - even if you think he's damaged the party himself, that's not a reason just to damage it further. It's completely insane what's happened with Labour since he's become leader.

After this second election, they just really now need to shut the fuck up for a while and get on with it.

Edit - Does it really count as a bigger mandate? He got 59% last time against three other people and there was no need for the second AV round to be triggered. He got 61.8% this time, which is more, but I'm pretty sure that his win last year would have been bigger in any of the head-to-heads.

Gavin Chipper wrote:And what would be the result of a contest between Jess Phillips and Jeremy Corbyn?

An easy win for Corbyn again, of course.

Almost all of the constituency Labour party members (in general) support Jeremy Corbyn - certainly over the political chameleon Owen Smith - and it seems that it's only the members of the parliamentary party that can't seem to grasp this. If they still refuse to serve under his leadership, they might as well split off into a different party - amounting to "Labour Lite" - or join the Liberal Democrats. But as most of them are more interested in climbing the greasy pole of politics, they won't, as either option would be detrimental to their political ambitions.

Gavin Chipper wrote:Edit - Does it really count as a bigger mandate? He got 59% last time against three other people and there was no need for the second AV round to be triggered. He got 61.8% this time, which is more, but I'm pretty sure that his win last year would have been bigger in any of the head-to-heads.

Which just goes to prove the arrogance of the PLP. Had it been Corbyn vs. Burnham in a straight head-to-head, it would probably have been something like a 60%/40% split in favour of Corbyn. In a straight race against Yvette Cooper, about 75%/25% in favour of Corbyn. Against Liz Kendall, more like 95%/5%. They all assumed that one of them - it didn't really matter which one - could win and they were all proved spectacularly wrong.

The only reason that Owen Smith managed 38.2% this time around is that the Smith campaign ensured that 150,000+ Labour members (all coincidentally Corbyn supporters) were barred from voting at all (and then allowing people to vote if they paid £25 towards his campaign); had they not got away with this piece of blatant cheating, the result would have been in the region of 83%/17% in favour of Corbyn.

And I still don't really don't understand the naysayers "Corbyn is unelectable" crap, since he's won every election since he became leader. One particular one gets my goat, that the Labour Party "lost" six seats in the last round of council elections, which is apparently appalling for an opposition party at this stage. However, when you examine the voter figures in detail, Labour would have had to have won something like 88% of all votes even to effect an overall gain, as local elections are done in batches, and the last one was one in which the Conservatives had a lot of unassailable councils. On those terms, 73% wasn't too bad. But you won't hear that reported in the media.

JimBentley wrote:
And I still don't really don't understand the naysayers "Corbyn is unelectable" crap, since he's won every election since he became leader.

I've heard this before and am curious which elections these are. I don't find the safe Oldham by election particularly impressive, nor would I give him any credit for Sadiq Khan winning in London when Khan went to great pains to disassociate himself with Corbyn. Obviously, the leadership elections don't count either, as the whole point of the argument is that Labour can't win when only talking to itself. Then there's Scotland, where Labour finished third behind the Conservatives.

Are there other mayoral elections I'm missing?

JimBentley wrote:
If so, I wonder who'll they will try next? It's not going to be any of the high-profile naysayers - people such as Yvette Cooper, Angela Eagle, Chuka Umunna, Liz Kendall, Hilary Benn, Stephen Kinnock, Tom Watson et al - who still harbour political ambitions, as they surely know that they would be beaten badly and that would harm their reputations irreparably. It'll have to be someone with name recognition, but expendable to the PLP, so my bet's going on Jess Phillips. As to when, probably early next year; they can't do it immediately, it would be too transparent.

I can't imagine anyone trying to oust Jeremy again. Unless he does something spectacularly wrong (even by his standards), the two options for the Labour moderates are either some sort of split or wait to be proved right in 2020.

Martin Bishop wrote:I've heard this before and am curious which elections these are.

Tell me then, which elections have Labour lost since Corbyn's been in charge? A few local council seats - and as I've already pointed out, they got 73% of the vote - to actually make gains they would have needed to be around 88%, which is practically impossible.

Martin Bishop wrote:I've heard this before and am curious which elections these are.

Tell me then, which elections have Labour lost since Corbyn's been in charge? A few local council seats - and as I've already pointed out, they got 73% of the vote - to actually make gains they would have needed to be around 88%, which is practically impossible.

The question wasn't which ones he's lost. Your claim was that he's proven himself electable by winning.

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm working on the assumption I've missed something.

I don't think I did (and I realise this is about nuance and I don't always express myself well, so it's probably my fault). I said that he's - so far - shown that he's not unelectable, which is a little different.

Gavin Chipper wrote:I've just been over to Betfair, and according to their current odds, the implied probability of Jeremy Corbyn becoming the next Prime Minister is somewhere between 9.5% and 15.6%.

I don't think that means a great deal. What you need to know is the size of the bets and the number of the bets, neither of which is likely to be particularly large at the moment. If a General Election is unexpectedly called within the next year or so, I would expect that probability to alter somewhat.

Gavin Chipper wrote:I've just been over to Betfair, and according to their current odds, the implied probability of Jeremy Corbyn becoming the next Prime Minister is somewhere between 9.5% and 15.6%.

I don't think that means a great deal. What you need to know is the size of the bets and the number of the bets, neither of which is likely to be particularly large at the moment. If a General Election is unexpectedly called within the next year or so, I would expect that probability to alter somewhat.

Certainly, but if you think that's wrong as it currently stands, there's money in it for you.

Gavin Chipper wrote:I've just been over to Betfair, and according to their current odds, the implied probability of Jeremy Corbyn becoming the next Prime Minister is somewhere between 9.5% and 15.6%.

I don't think that means a great deal. What you need to know is the size of the bets and the number of the bets, neither of which is likely to be particularly large at the moment. If a General Election is unexpectedly called within the next year or so, I would expect that probability to alter somewhat.

Certainly, but if you think that's wrong as it currently stands, there's money in it for you.

I actually put a bet on Corbyn being Prime Minister by 2020 at 33/1 last year. It wasn't a large bet (£10), so I don't care if I lose it but it'll be a nice payoff if it actually happens (to be honest I don't think it will, the odds are so stacked against him). Best odds I can find now are 5/1 and seem to be closing day by day, so I think I got on at the right time (albeit probably on the wrong horse).

JimBentley wrote:I actually put a bet on Corbyn being Prime Minister by 2020 at 33/1 last year. It wasn't a large bet (£10), so I don't care if I lose it but it'll be a nice payoff if it actually happens (to be honest I don't think it will, the odds are so stacked against him). Best odds I can find now are 5/1 and seem to be closing day by day, so I think I got on at the right time (albeit probably on the wrong horse).

JimBentley wrote:I actually put a bet on Corbyn being Prime Minister by 2020 at 33/1 last year. It wasn't a large bet (£10), so I don't care if I lose it but it'll be a nice payoff if it actually happens (to be honest I don't think it will, the odds are so stacked against him). Best odds I can find now are 5/1 and seem to be closing day by day, so I think I got on at the right time (albeit probably on the wrong horse).

Presumably you can lay the bet to make a guaranteed profit now.

That's something I've considered, but I just can't bring myself to bet on a Tory victory. Although if the odds are right when the election date becomes known, I might hedge it a bit by betting on a hung parliament.

Now that UKIP are leaderless once again (not that it seems to make any difference) and it looks as though Brexit is going to happen (so their major - only? - objective has been achieved), can anyone explain to me what the purpose of UKIP is now? Their policies can't simply mirror Conservative policies, what would be the point of that?

I don't mean to sound melodramatic, but the only way I can see UKIP as a distinct party that certain people might want to vote for over the others is for them to espouse the policies of the National Front (late 1970s version)...

JimBentley wrote:Now that UKIP are leaderless once again (not that it seems to make any difference) and it looks as though Brexit is going to happen (so their major - only? - objective has been achieved), can anyone explain to me what the purpose of UKIP is now? Their policies can't simply mirror Conservative policies, what would be the point of that?

I don't mean to sound melodramatic, but the only way I can see UKIP as a distinct party that certain people might want to vote for over the others is for them to espouse the policies of the National Front (late 1970s version)...

I suppose until "Brexit" (never forget the scare quotes) actually happens, they will still want to be vocal about what should happen in any negotiations.

And also, existing EU laws are being written into UK law so that they will still apply once we leave, as I understand it. They will then have to be got rid of one by one. UKIP might want to have a say in this too.

Gavin Chipper wrote:I suppose until "Brexit" (never forget the scare quotes) actually happens, they will still want to be vocal about what should happen in any negotiations.

And also, existing EU laws are being written into UK law so that they will still apply once we leave, as I understand it. They will then have to be got rid of one by one. UKIP might want to have a say in this too.

The thing is, as far as I can tell, Theresa May has been saying exactly the same thing since she took over the Tory leadership, so unless they want to go even further (and bear in mind Theresa May is talking about taking Britain out of the European Convention on Human Rights), they're going to have to take some pretty extreme lines...such as the policies espoused by the National Front in the late 70s.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm getting increasingly disturbed by the state of politics in this country lately.

The exit fans are still up to their old tricks of relying on half-truths to justify their narrow-minded proposals, claiming that 52% gives them a mandate to do whatever they like.

The fact is that the actual votes were 37.6% leave, 34.6% stay, 27.8% didn't/couldn't decide, so it is by no means true that over half the population wanted out.

Furthermore, as the question was a simple "in or out" there is no indication that every one of the people voting to leave was in favour of the wholesale destruction of international cooperation now being considered by the Tory Government.

No doubt you'll have seen the UKIP contretemps in the EU parliament today. Hoping that Steven Woolfe makes a full recovery, but what the fuck's going on with that party? They barely have any parliamentary representatives and those they have seem all to have it in for each other (Aaron Banks, their chief backer, has also said that if Douglas Carswell -their sole UK MP - and Neil Hamilton - their leader in Wales - remain within the party, he's off back to the Tories again). Plus Nigel Farage - ostensibly their "interim leader" has variously described Hamilton as "toxic" and Carswell as "a lunatic".

Peter Mabey wrote:The exit fans are still up to their old tricks of relying on half-truths to justify their narrow-minded proposals, claiming that 52% gives them a mandate to do whatever they like.

The fact is that the actual votes were 37.6% leave, 34.6% stay, 27.8% didn't/couldn't decide, so it is by no means true that over half the population wanted out.

Furthermore, as the question was a simple "in or out" there is no indication that every one of the people voting to leave was in favour of the wholesale destruction of international cooperation now being considered by the Tory Government.

There certainly isn't a mandate for any particular type of "Brexit" since we weren't asked about that. Even if it's the case that most people voting out want curbs on immigration, for example, a majority of a majority isn't necessarily a majority. If 52% of people voted out then with only 4% of those voting out for reasons other than immigration, it's not a majority. The whole thing is bollocks really. They should have thought it through first.

Zac Goldsmith has resigned as MP in protest against the third Heathrow runway, but apparently he's going to stand again as an independent.

Leaving the whole Heathrow business aside (that's not the reason I'm posting), it really annoys me when MPs resign and then stand again in the by-election. It's such a waste of everyone's time and effort, not to mention taxpayers' money. And to me it just shows how overstated parties' importance is - like when Tory Douglas Carswell resigned and got re-elected as a UKIP MP.

You're an MP. You got elected as an MP, so just get on with it. If you want to change party, or go independent, do so and you'll remain an MP for the rest of this parliament, and people can vote you in or out next time based on this information, but don't resign and re-stand.

In fact, I'd make it a rule that if an MP resigns, they can't stand again in the subsequent by-election. Put your ego away and stop wasting the public's money.

It just seems a bit extreme to me that a whole constituency can be thrown into "election mode" based on one person's whims. And the MP's principles wouldn't suddenly fundamentally change, so the way they represent their constituents is unlikely to be massively affected.

Also in my ideal world, people would vote for candidates on more than which "club" they're a member of.

Right. I want to talk about the current situation with "Brexit" - always use scare quotes. It's not a proper word; it's just journalese rubbish.

Some people think it's really bad that the high court has decided that triggering article 50 requires parliamentary approval. I don't really see the problem though. Are people worried that parliament might refuse to ever vote it through? Well, the alternative is that it's basically left up to Theresa May. And why's that any different or more reliable? She could just decide not to trigger it just as easily as parliament could vote against it. Sure, she gave a date she was going to trigger it by (which has now seemingly gone out of the window), but that was after she became Prime Minister. She could have easily just not done it. But maybe she wouldn't have been able to get away with it. Maybe there would have been a vote of no confidence from parliament. From parliament? Who we apparently don't trust on this matter?

My point is that why should parliament as a whole be less likely to enact the "will of the people" than one person - who was in some sense a remainer? (I say "in some sense" because she was completely invisible during the campaign.) Leaving it up to the government or leaving it up to parliament - why is leaving it up to parliament so much worse and less democratic? It's not. It's just a mountain out of a molehill.

But of course there's the worry that parliament might demand to know what sort of EU exit (fuck this "Brexit" - I'm not using the word any more) the government will be trying to get. And if that happens, the government will have to reveal its hand and then it will lose the game of poker! Because the exit negotiations are just like a game of poker, you see. Except that there is no fucking similarity whatsoever! When the UK leaves the EU, the idea is for the UK and the remaining members of the EU to get a deal that is in the interests of all parties. In poker, you are trying the defeat the other players.

In any case, even if they don't want to reveal their full "hand", there will have to be an initial negotiating position with the EU. And there's no need for that to be secret and not revealed in advance, even if the government don't want to reveal exactly what later moves they would make depending on how negotiations go. So what they're saying is bollocks.

People voted to leave the EU in the referendum, but there was no vote on any particular type of exit. It could be that the specifics of what the government decides it wants to do would have lost in a referendum versus staying in. People voted out for different reasons, so voting out doesn't mean that any type of exit whatsoever is democratic. So of course it makes sense that it should go to parliament at least.

But this whole thing does appear to be a bit of a mess though doesn't it? If we were going to have a referendum on leaving the EU, proper plans should have been put in place for what would happen if we voted to leave. But they weren't. And whose fault is it? Largely David Cameron's. David Cameron who just made a stupid gamble in order to become Prime Minister for another five years, without thinking through the consequences of what might happen if people voted to leave the EU. What a cunt.

Gavin Chipper wrote:Right. I want to talk about the current situation with "Brexit"

I for one am bloody sick of hearing about "Brexit". Every time I turn on any sort of vaguely political programme they're either talking about "Brexit" and its consequences, or they're giving airtime to that shitheel Donald Trump. The BBC are especially guilty in this regard, especially when it comes to talking about how "Brexit" is going to change everything for everyone, whereas every sensible viewer surely knows that there'll be a lot of pointless talking and posturing, but at the end of it all, we're pretty much going to have the same situation as before, albeit on maybe very slightly worse terms.

As for Trump, I can't believe that clown is a serious contender for becoming President of the most powerful and influential country in the world. Americans who are even considering voting for him must be fucking insane.

Can I suggest a game, called Let's Make a Parliament. Everyone gets to nominate an MP to keep, an MP to chuck out, and a new MP, until we're bored. So, keep Chuka Umunna, chuck out Michael Gove, and bring in Gavin Chapwell.

Heather Styles wrote:Can I suggest a game, called Let's Make a Parliament. Everyone gets to nominate an MP to keep, an MP to chuck out, and a new MP, until we're bored. So, keep Chuka Umunna, chuck out Michael Gove, and bring in Gavin Chapwell.

Whilst I applaud the sentiment (except for keeping Chukka Umunna; he just wants to turn the Labour Party into the slightly-less Conservative Party because it would make them more "electable", whereas I think that Labour need to be distinct from the Tories) but I would like to chuck out more than one MP and I wouldn't really want to keep many. Can I chuck out 550, keep 50 and nominate 25? I'd be up for that but it might make for a bit of a long post.

With Euan having chucked out Liam Fox (good shout) and not nominated a replacement, there is spare space up for grabs, so we could have Caroline Lucas. Actually can we have Mhairi Black as well. I'd be very happy for you to share your whole list, Jim, as long as you are happy for others to chuck out more than one of the ones you put in. I reluctantly accept that Chuka has gone.

Heather Styles wrote:With Euan having chucked out Liam Fox (good shout) and not nominated a replacement, there is spare space up for grabs, so we could have Caroline Lucas. Actually can we have Mhairi Black as well. I'd be very happy for you to share your whole list, Jim, as long as you are happy for others to chuck out more than one of the ones you put in. I reluctantly accept that Chuka has gone.

I have the unfortunate luck of MP Fox being my local MP...

COUNTDOWN or THETUBE? Which is better? There's only one way to find out....

Heather Styles wrote:With Euan having chucked out Liam Fox (good shout) and not nominated a replacement, there is spare space up for grabs, so we could have Caroline Lucas. Actually can we have Mhairi Black as well. I'd be very happy for you to share your whole list, Jim, as long as you are happy for others to chuck out more than one of the ones you put in. I reluctantly accept that Chuka has gone.

Heather Styles wrote:With Euan having chucked out Liam Fox (good shout) and not nominated a replacement, there is spare space up for grabs, so we could have Caroline Lucas. Actually can we have Mhairi Black as well. I'd be very happy for you to share your whole list, Jim, as long as you are happy for others to chuck out more than one of the ones you put in. I reluctantly accept that Chuka has gone.

Caroline Lucas and Mhairi Black are already MPs though aren't they?

I was going to post the exact same thing but thought I'd maybe misunderstood the rules and thought better of it, knowing that you would post something along the same lines.

Also I was going to post my full list of people to chuck out and people to keep in, but I was really struggling to come up with 50 to retain. This current shower are really fucking bad, more so than I can ever remember, even at the height of Thatcherism when there were 400-odd Conservatives. At least in those days, Labour politicians could be generally depended upon to have some sort of leaning towards socialism. Now, the vast majority of the so-called Labour MPs are little more than Conservatives with a red rosette pinned onto them.

I don't seem to have thought through the rules. I was really just trying to make conversation. Nicholas Soames wouldn't be missed by me and, as you say, him going would leave more space for others. Arguably, really fat MPs should have to get simultaneously elected to twork constituencies in order to be allowed a seat in Parliament.

I can't type sense at the best of times. I'm gonna blame my new phone, which seems to be enabling me come out with even more nonsense than usual. I'm guessing I meant two (or more) constituencies rather than twork constituencies but now I have an image of John Prescott twerking, which is really not what I wanted.

Heather Styles wrote:I can't type sense at the best of times. I'm gonna blame my new phone, which seems to be enabling me come out with even more nonsense than usual. I'm guessing I meant two (or more) constituencies rather than twork constituencies but now I have an image of John Prescott twerking, which is really not what I wanted.

Phew! I was worried it might be some exciting new buzzword that had passed me by. As those who know me will know, I like to keep up with all the latest youth trends, such as piloting motor coaches and (hang on I think I've done this one before).

As for John Prescott twerking, you don't need to just imagine it! You can go and see his shows at the Hull Ritzy on Thursdays and Saturdays for just £5.50 (including chicken and chips or scampi and chips). He's slimmed down a lot but if you ask me it just makes him look more haggard.

Sorry, bringing it back to politics again... What I've been thinking about recently is, should there be a referendum solely on the terms of EU exit? (I am definitely not talking about there being a rerun of the June 23 referendum.) I'm struggling to make up my mind on this and am interested to know what others think about the prospect of a referendum on exit terms. Of course, if the Supreme Court rules in favour of the government (and with a Halloween pumpkin now as President-Elect of the USA, very little would surprise me now), the matter of a second referendum becomes purely academic...

Heather Styles wrote:Sorry, bringing it back to politics again... What I've been thinking about recently is, should there be a referendum solely on the terms of EU exit?

Irrespective of whether there should be such a referendum, I think it's highly unlikely that this government will announce one, mainly because various Brexit options would have to be set out. In the months since the EU referendum, the government haven't demonstrated that they even know what those options are beyond vague blatherings that it "should be the best possible Brexit for the UK" and the truly asinine and unhelpful soundbite "Brexit means Brexit". We haven't been given any concrete proposals, because the government don't know what they are. In the absence of any sort of options, I can only conclude that their plan is going to be "we'll just make it up as we go along".

Heather Styles wrote:Sorry, bringing it back to politics again... What I've been thinking about recently is, should there be a referendum solely on the terms of EU exit?

Irrespective of whether there should be such a referendum, I think it's highly unlikely that this government will announce one, mainly because various Brexit options would have to be set out. In the months since the EU referendum, the government haven't demonstrated that they even know what those options are beyond vague blatherings that it "should be the best possible Brexit for the UK" and the truly asinine and unhelpful soundbite "Brexit means Brexit". We haven't been given any concrete proposals, because the government don't know what they are. In the absence of any sort of options, I can only conclude that their plan is going to be "we'll just make it up as we go along".

They've also said that they're not going to tell us anything (because it's like a game of poker - see above somewhere), so I'm not sure there can be another referendum. We won't find anything out until well after Article 50 has been "triggered", and by then it's presumably too late.

Probably should be on a new thread but shouldn't that evil bastard who murdered Jo Cox , be given the death penalty rather than waste hundreds of thousands of tax payers money to incarcerate them.
No society should ever kill another human.
But evil scum like this should lose their human status and be treated like a rabid animal

Making stuff up as one goes along, that usually works out well. Glad to know we're in safe hands. How on earth are the EU exit negotiations like a game of poker? Oh I see, they're not. Not a fan of the death penalty.

Marc Meakin wrote:Probably should be on a new thread but shouldn't that evil bastard who murdered Jo Cox , be given the death penalty rather than waste hundreds of thousands of tax payers money to incarcerate them.
No society should ever kill another human.
But evil scum like this should lose their human status and be treated like a rabid animal

Only if you consider him worthy of being called a human being.
I was clearly making a distinction between putting a creature down if it had rabies or whatever and a danger to society. And a human being.
I think murder in cold blood should always carry a death penalty outside of War.
I guess unless it was your wife, mother, sister or daughter you may disagree

Marc Meakin wrote:Only if you consider him worthy of being called a human being.
I was clearly making a distinction between putting a creature down if it had rabies or whatever and a danger to society. And a human being.
I think murder in cold blood should always carry a death penalty outside of War.
I guess unless it was your wife, mother, sister or daughter you may disagree

Oh, I see now. I like to think that I'd never call for anyone to be killed ever. We can never make a perfect enough, objective enough judgement. In his case, I probably passed him in the street on many occasions, my mum lived across the street from him for a few years. Odd to think. And I don't think his act was in cold blood. It was based upon a stupidly misguided isolated world view, logical, from a very bad set of initial premises.

I fail to see any logic in a misguided ideaology.
He can't even claim to be a Christian terrorist.
I do agree however that I would not personally want to kill anyone ever, although that also goes with slaughtering mammals for food

To say that an ideology is misguided or not is a matter of opinion. To say that it is logical or not is a matter of fact. You can see the logic of an ideology without agreeing with it in the slightest. I have difficulty with the view that it is right to kill a person or animal but that you would not, or could not do it yourself.

Question Time is on shortly - what's the betting that all the questions will be about fucking "Brexit" again, for the 412th week running? Maybe sneak in one about the American election too? I'm getting very tired of exactly the same discussions every week, but for some reason still keep watching it.

I suppose there are other programmes with more sophisticated discussion, and it's my fault for not watching them. Newsnight is presumably better.

Heather Styles wrote:To say that an ideology is misguided or not is a matter of opinion. To say that it is logical or not is a matter of fact. You can see the logic of an ideology without agreeing with it in the slightest. I have difficulty with the view that it is right to kill a person or animal but that you would not, or could not do it yourself.

I like to fly to foreign countries but not fly the plane.
If everyone had to slaughter an animal for food then most would be veggies.
I cannot understand why cannot reason with this

People who would not be prepared to kill an animal for food should not eat meat, and those who would not be prepared to administer the death penalty should not advovate it, in my opinion. My choosing to be flown in a plane rather than flying it myself is a matter of my lack of skills, and not an ethical decision for me. Back to politics, yes, Brexit can get boring because nothing has happened in news terms for a while, and it probably won't until the Supreme Court verdict in January.

Heather Styles wrote:People who would not be prepared to kill an animal for food should not eat meat, and those who would not be prepared to administer the death penalty should not advovate it, in my opinion. My choosing to be flown in a plane rather than flying it myself is a matter of my lack of skills, and not an ethical decision for me.

I would wagar that most people, even staunch vegetarians, would be prepared to kill an animal for food given certain circumstances. Meat eaters who dont want to kill aren't necessarily betraying their ethics. Not wanting to kill doesn't have to have anything to do with ethics. There can simply be an element of squeamishness to it. I'm not against killing animals but would prefer not to have to do it myself in the same way I wouldn't want to work in the sewer but I'm not going to stop using the toilet.

As for the death penalty I'm 100% against it but i have no problem with people who advocate it but are not prepared to administer it. If everyone who was for the death penalty was not prepared to administer it then essentially we'd have no death penalty.